Philosophy Tube / Oliver Lennard / Oliver "Olly" Thorn / Abigail Thorn - Breadtube's Patrick Bateman.

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

…In what version of the UK aren’t trans people allowed to marry? Same sex marriage has been legal there for years. Before then, a male with a gender recognition certificate could marry another man. If anything, they’ve historically been privileged in that regard. Two ordinary gay dudes? Shit out of luck. A closest case and his fridge in a dress? Wedding bells!

Also, a guy called Philosophy Tube declaring a subject off limit for debate is pretty rich. We can debate little things like euthanasia or the nature of reality and morality, but not whether men can cheat at women’s sports.

 

[AssignedEva]

…In what version of the UK aren’t trans people allowed to marry? Same sex marriage has been legal there for years. Before then, a male with a gender recognition certificate could marry another man. If anything, they’ve historically been privileged in that regard. Two ordinary gay dudes? Shit out of luck. A closest case and his fridge in a dress? Wedding bells!

Also, a guy called Philosophy Tube declaring a subject off limit for debate is pretty rich. We can debate little things like euthanasia or the nature of reality and morality, but not whether men can cheat at women’s sports.

The only thing Ollie means by this is civil marriages cannot be held with the words "husband and wife" (or "wife and wife") if the trans woman does not possess a gender recognition certificate.

You have to say some version of the phrase "I (name) take you (name) to be my wedded wife/husband", based exclusively on what their birth certificate says.

That's legitimately the only time this comes up - marriage certificates and the like don't use it. But you have to say husband if the person is male and doesn't have a gender recognition certificate, or else you cannot be pronounced legally married.

If you've got a gender recognition certificate then you can get married with the word wife being used. You have to get diagnosed twice with gender dysphoria and have been living in your new gender for at least two years. One of the diagnoses needs to come from a doctor or psychologist who specialises in gender dysphoria, and you need to supply evidence of living in your gender (so you've changed your driving license etc).

This clashes with Ollie because a) NHS wait times for everything are disgraceful, so it's going to take a while to get seen by a gender clinic for that diagnosis unless you go private and b) this obviously requires a trans person to both provide evidence and have a diagnosis from someone who is capable of disagreeing that the person is actually trans, which is the absolute obvious of Ollie's "trans people should get every treatment and surgery for free NOW NOW NOW, and also self ID NOW NOW NOW".

Ollie is wealthy enough to jump through all the hoops faster than most people, and public enough to probably spook most medical professionals into signing off on his diagnosis, so he probably could get married as a woman within a year if he found himself a bride (although wait till you find out how hard it is to marry a foreigner who doesn't have permanent residency status here, Ollie, maybe then you can do something useful and sperg about the Home Office). Or he could get married right now in a wedding dress as long as he can handle the word "husband" being said to him once. He just can't get married as a wife right now.

(It is also worth noting this "two doctors" thing is nothing special and is required for abortions or getting sectioned, both things where delays because it takes ages to see two doctors have much more of an impact).

Spoiler: Additional context for international friends

Everyone in England has to have a civil wedding unless they're having an Anglican, Catholic, Quaker or Jewish wedding. Everyone else can have a religious ceremony, but are not legally married until they go to the registry office and have a brief civil ceremony that is solemnised and has those words spoken.

Ollie actually is in a rare situation where he could have a lesbian wedding in a (very open minded) Church of England church, as they recently said they'd accept a wedding provided the spouses were of the opposite sex at the time of marriage. That does run into the same "husband" issue. You also cannot shop around for a pretty church to get married in, you have to use your local parish church, unless it's a church you have a family connection to (e.g. your Mum got baptised there) or you attend it at least once a month for 6 consecutive months + the duration of the banns (up to 3 months) before the wedding. So if Ollie wanted a destination wedding in a church, he would have to travel to that rural idyll quite a bit. It's even more involved for a Catholic or Jewish wedding if you're trying to get married in a Catholic church or Synagogue, and if you wanted another religious ceremony or a hippy woodland ceremony, you still have to have a civil ceremony as you don't count. It's almost like nobody in the UK can get married without any caveats whatsoever?

Oh, one other point worth noting - if Ollie got married abroad, the UK would recognise his marriage but still legally classify him as a husband, even if he'd obtained a gender recognition certificate equivalent in that country (although such paperwork can be used to speed up the gender recognition certificate process here) until he got a GRC here.

 

[frap]

Dear god it’s pathetic. He just obviously knows he’ll be easily destroyed and his fragile ego can’t risk such a blow to his paper-thin brand.

Also lol at his description of himself as a public educator. He’s a not-very-well-known YouTube who likes to indulge his fetish on camera, not David Attenborough.

 

[The Jackal]

Ok so due to a change in how Vimeo works, all of the videos in the OP are now broken (god only knows why Icasaracht decided against embedding them directly). Since he's banned he's no longer able to fix it, but fortunately the most important clip in there has been located, so I'm going to reupload it here for posterity.
(i.e. he says that he has never had gender dysphoria)

Good work. Jesus, what a fucking fraud. Real psychopathic, compulsive liar vibes.

Also, a guy called Philosophy Tube declaring a subject off limit for debate is pretty rich. We can debate little things like euthanasia or the nature of reality and morality, but not whether men can cheat at women’s sports.

Exactly this and I have so much contempt for him for saying that. In philosophy the definition of any concept is naturally a matter of debate, but that's not even the point. Exactly what rights are and which rights we have and don't have is a subject which is constantly being discussed in every democratic society across the globe. It's important to discuss it. We can't ever hope to approach a consensus if we don't. He's essentially admitting here that his beliefs are nothing more than pseudo-religious dogma - he has no desire to convince people that he's right, he just wants to bully everyone else into behaving in the way he thinks they should. This is how jihadists and dictators view the world.

Let's take a look at these 'rights' he believes cannot be questioned:

• the right to healthcare - he already has it
• the right to get married - he already has it
• the right to start a family - he already has it
• the right to not be harassed - he already has it
• the right to live free from violence - he already has it

The only thing he considers a fundamental right that he doesn't already have is to be able to compete as a woman in sports. Well who the fuck does he think he is to wish to enforce his unreasonable views on everyone else without even condescending to discuss the matter?

 

[EverlyB]

I know this essay has been discussed here before, but there's so much to unpack.

He asks, How are trans procedures any different from the "gender affirming procedures" cis people get? and gives the examples of BBLs, breast augmentations, and rhinoplasties. Yet if they were actually treated equally, they wouldn't be state-funded! They wouldn't even be crowdfunded and celebrated as a way to live as your "authentic" self, even though they do lead to lasting improvement in self-esteem and body image.

Even so, they're not the same. It's always going to be better to be a more attractive version of yourself. Sure, it sucks when people get cosmetic procedures to fit a trend only for the trend to change (e.g. Hollywood pug noses, big BBLs), but if done correctly, the difference is merely cosmetic and you're just a different acceptable-looking version of you.

The changes that come with trans procedures, on the other hand, are beyond superficial and only desirable if you continue to identify as trans. That's not necessarily something we can predict for everyone. A more apt comparison is BIID amputations. Even though there's actually a high "success" rate when these surgeries are performed (alleviating bodily dysphoria with no regrets), many will refuse to perform them because the outcome would be horrific if one regretted it. The point of bringing up detransitioners isn't to say "This is going to happen if one transitions" but "How the hell do we know this isn't going to happen?"

Olly then goes on to draw analogies with HRT for menopausal women and breast reductions for women with back pain to argue that trans procedures should be NHS-funded. You've got to wonder if he even recognizes a categorical difference between them and cosmetic procedures - should they all be state-funded, or what was the point of him even bringing up "cis" cosmetic procedures earlier? But think for a second and you'll see the real difference isn't "cis vs. trans." It's that menopausal women didn't feel so awful until their hormones dropped and women who need reductions didn't feel such back pain until their breasts grew that large, whereas trans procedures give people hormone levels and sexed features they've never had under the assumption they'll feel better once they have them.

I know what I've said here isn't groundbreaking or mind-changing to y'all, but it just goes to show how poorly thought out Olly's trans philosophy is if this thinking is what it hinges on. I may not agree with e.g. ContraPoints, Katy Montgomerie, or Rachel Anne Williams on gender ideology, but I can respect how they make sophisticated arguments that would genuinely take time and effort to properly refute because they understand what valid reasoning looks like.

 

[BetterFuckChuck]

View attachment 3737197
I know this essay has been discussed here before, but there's so much to unpack.

He asks, How are trans procedures any different from the "gender affirming procedures" cis people get? and gives the examples of BBLs, breast augmentations, and rhinoplasties. Yet if they were actually treated equally, they wouldn't be state-funded! They wouldn't even be crowdfunded and celebrated as a way to live as your "authentic" self, even though they do lead to lasting improvement in self-esteem and body image.

Even so, they're not the same. It's always going to be better to be a more attractive version of yourself. Sure, it sucks when people get cosmetic procedures to fit a trend only for the trend to change (e.g. Hollywood pug noses, big BBLs), but if done correctly, the difference is merely cosmetic and you're just a different acceptable-looking version of you.

The changes that come with trans procedures, on the other hand, are beyond superficial and only desirable if you continue to identify as trans. That's not necessarily something we can predict for everyone. A more apt comparison is BIID amputations. Even though there's actually a high "success" rate when these surgeries are performed (alleviating bodily dysphoria with no regrets), many will refuse to perform them because the outcome would be horrific if one regretted it. The point of bringing up detransitioners isn't to say "This is going to happen if one transitions" but "How the hell do we know this isn't going to happen?"

Olly then goes on to draw analogies with HRT for menopausal women and breast reductions for women with back pain to argue that trans procedures should be NHS-funded. You've got to wonder if he even recognizes a categorical difference between them and cosmetic procedures - should they all be state-funded, or what was the point of him even bringing up "cis" cosmetic procedures earlier? But think for a second and you'll see the real difference isn't "cis vs. trans." It's that menopausal women didn't feel so awful until their hormones dropped and women who need reductions didn't feel such back pain until their breasts grew that large, whereas trans procedures give people hormone levels and sexed features they've never had under the assumption they'll feel better once they have them.

I know what I've said here isn't groundbreaking or mind-changing to y'all, but it just goes to show how poorly thought out Olly's trans philosophy is if this thinking is what it hinges on. I may not agree with e.g. ContraPoints, Katy Montgomerie, or Rachel Anne Williams on gender ideology, but I can respect how they make sophisticated arguments that would genuinely take time and effort to properly refute because they understand what valid reasoning looks like.

It's weird to ask "but what about the cisgender surgeries?" when half those things he listed are stuff mentally maladjusted freaks like Michael Jackson had

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

So, basically, Olly's suggesting that being "misgendered" out loud once is so traumatic, he wouldn't marry his true love for fear of it. Funny, I'm pretty sure people called me a girl a bunch of times growing up, and yet I remain among the 69%. It's almost as though most sane people don't care about being "misgendered" even when they are in fact not the sex they're being called.

Exactly this and I have so much contempt for him for saying that. In philosophy the definition of any concept is naturally a matter of debate, but that's not even the point. Exactly what rights are and which rights we have and don't have is a subject which is constantly being discussed in every democratic society across the globe. It's important to discuss it. We can't ever hope to approach a consensus if we don't. He's essentially admitting here that his beliefs are nothing more than pseudo-religious dogma - he has no desire to convince people that he's right, he just wants to bully everyone else into behaving in the way he thinks they should. This is how jihadists and dictators view the world.

Literally every human right is the product of thousands of years of debate, if not open warfare. We live in a seemingly godless, uncaring cosmos, and must devise our own sacred games and rites. Except for men playing women's volleyball, that's written in the laws of fucking physics apparently.

 

[Mudkipcorn]

I saw someone (a femboy) posting on /lgbt/ recently. Said he didn't want to grow boobs and identifies as a highly feminine man. He wanted to retain and enhance his androgynaiety without looking like a woman (hence the no boobs), and asked how to get HRT. His main concern was a fear of aging. Didn't want to 'age like a man' specifically. Of course a few posters were discouraging him, saying that he will grow boobs so don't even try. But others told him to take his pills and one even said he could always get his HRTitties removed if they got out of hand. Others rightly called him a misguided retard.

Disturbing stuff. Zoomers, led by the narratives older people of gender are putting out, really are seeing HRT as an accessory. I am much more sympathetic to those with gender dysphoria (as I'm sure we all are). But some people really are approaching it just for vanity and out of a fear of aging. It has been way to normalized and destigmatized. It's sad. Even if estrogen can combat baldness and prevent the formation of a beer belly (though there's plenty of evidence on this site showing it is nowhere near 100% effective at that), you're going to get older and become less hot.

I didn't take screencaps but Olly's tumblr insanity brought it to mind.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

Didn't want to 'age like a man' specifically.

If I recall, Ellen Paige talked about 'aging as a woman' when she trooned out. Disturbing commonality.

 

[The Best of Me]

Just found out one of my lesbian friends I hadn't seen in a while trooned out

So, basically, Olly's suggesting that being "misgendered" out loud once is so traumatic, he wouldn't marry his true love for fear of it. Funny, I'm pretty sure people called me a girl a bunch of times growing up, and yet I remain among the 69%.

Reminds me of this little number I whipped up last year. Probably not the biggest audience to release it to but here goes:

Men's biggest fear is that women will laugh at them

Women's biggest fear is that men will kill them

Men identifying as women interpret women laughing at them as women literally killing them

Needs some rewording I know

 

[EverlyB]

Reminds me of this little number I whipped up last year. Probably not the biggest audience to release it to but here goes:

Men's biggest fear is that women will laugh at them

Women's biggest fear is that men will kill them

Men identifying as women interpret women laughing at them as women literally killing them

Needs some rewording I know

Nah, that's a good variation of that Atwood quote. And women identifying as men are indeed still more afraid that men will kill them than laugh at them.

For better or for worse, men tend to interpret being disliked as something wrong with the hater and women interpret being disliked as something wrong with themselves. A misgendered TIF is more likely to think, What's wrong with me? How am I not passing well enough? What more do I need to do? than say, "Fuck you, it's SIR!"

People have not believed TWAW until recent social pressure to do so, and now those who disagree do so because they're part of a cult?

I've moved away from radfems' ideology, just taking the bits I find useful and in touch with reality. They under-recognize real sex psychological differences that aren't necessarily flattering for women but are still important to make sense of women. They might not like me for my beliefs, whatever, but they're not going to feel compelled to block and warn about me, afraid that my presence will corrupt them and make a space unsafe. As long as I'm a woman who just wants the best for women, even if we disagree on how that should be achieved, they'll never view me on par with the violent males and evil perverts that they wish ill upon.

Compare that with how TRAs view women who've peak transed. Normies who've never really understood the trans thing (e.g. most straight men, older generations, people from non-Western cultures) are potential allies if you keep drilling "trans women are women" into their heads and make them accept it uncritically. But someone who did believe it and now speaks out about its harms is a real threat - it means the movement couldn't control their thoughts as well as it hoped.

It's like how Jehovah's Witnesses view the world as corrupt, blinded to the truth, wickedly led astray, but they're friendly to outsiders, wishing them the best, hopeful that they'll see the light. When a once-faithful member leaves the faith, though, anything less than shunning them is a serious sin.

A sign of a cult: treating apostates worse than enemies.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

The recent turn of discussion in this thread has really hammered in that, as society generally becomes more egalitarian in regards to sex, the more pointless trans identity becomes. Like, men and women can both legally own property, work, vote, stand for office, and wear whatever clothes and makeup they like. What is even the point of "legally" being a woman and not just a dude who likes dresses and shit?

Oh yeah, cheating at sports and perving on chicks in the locker room.

I still don't get why Britain is treated as this unusually, pathologically transphobic country. Is it just because Rowling lives there?

 

[The Jackal]

The recent turn of discussion in this thread has really hammered in that, as society generally becomes more egalitarian in regards to sex, the more pointless trans identity becomes. Like, men and women can both legally own property, work, vote, stand for office, and wear whatever clothes and makeup they like. What is even the point of "legally" being a woman and not just a dude who likes dresses and shit?

Quite. It's not enough to just live your life dressing and behaving as a woman, you have to force everyone to play this silly charade. The fetishism aspect of pretending to be a woman is appealing in itself, but I suspect many wouldn't even bother to fully troon out if it didn't come with social benefits. You get prestige among a certain clique of young urban people who are conned into believing it's a legitimate civil rights movement, you get to feel like a freedom fighter bravely standing up to tyranny by abusing those who disagree with you, and above all that rush of imposing your will on others, making them play along with the fantasy. That's a heady brew for narcissistic manchildren.

I still don't get why Britain is treated as this unusually, pathologically transphobic country. Is it just because Rowling lives there?

Ironically the opposite. Britain is a liberal-minded Western country and because of the shared language we rapidly pick up exported American trends, like the TRA movement. It's precisely because Britain is so pro-trans (comparatively speaking - it's still just a loud minority) that means TRAs' hysterical delusions about being persecuted are amplified and thus intensified.

That's my theory anyway. Objectively speaking, if you took a survey of the population of every country on Earth and ranked them according to how tolerant they are of transsexuals, the UK, Canada, the US and Australia are always going to be at the top of the list. Again Ollie just enjoys feeling persecuted.

 

[AssignedEva]

So, basically, Olly's suggesting that being "misgendered" out loud once is so traumatic, he wouldn't marry his true love for fear of it. Funny, I'm pretty sure people called me a girl a bunch of times growing up, and yet I remain among the 69%. It's almost as though most sane people don't care about being "misgendered" even when they are in fact not the sex they're being called.



Literally every human right is the product of thousands of years of debate, if not open warfare. We live in a seemingly godless, uncaring cosmos, and must devise our own sacred games and rites. Except for men playing women's volleyball, that's written in the laws of fucking physics apparently.

Spoiler: Another sperg

I have been googling to make sure and although there's a few references to "husband and wife" on gov.uk (usually around inheritance law guidance), I really can't see any other situation where that language is used. Pretty much everything on the law books was updated to say "spouse or civil partner" or was already gender neutral (e.g. the decree nisi and decree absolute only ever said "petitioner", "respondent" and "spouse", since it could be either party). The wedding certificate doesn't even use the language "husband" and "wife". Every form of government ID besides the birth certificate can be updated to M or F (no X option which pisses off some activists) requiring at most a GP's note to change, and public sector bodies are all required to refer to someone as their preferred gender.

Possibly there may be issues around a family visa as it differentiates between "fiancé" and "fiancée" but that'd probably only come up if Ollie's spouse hadn't legally changed their gender in the US.

There may be other implications with insurance providers and the like but that's more to do with the insurance providers.

The only thing stopping registrars using "spouse" in the ceremony is the Wedding Act 1949, because nobody bothered amending that one bit of wording. It's the same act that also means you can't have "Ave Maria" play you down the aisle and why you can't have a Bible reading at a civil ceremony.

The only other things a Gender Recognition Certificate does (as far as I can tell):

• Changes your birth certificate so you can use an updated version for ID purposes
• Makes it a criminal offence to out you (if that person knew you had a gender recognition certificate and you weren't already publicly out)
• Changes what goes on your death certificate
• Allows you to be recorded as a father/parent on a birth certificate (unless you gave birth to the child, in which case you're inevitably the mother - if there's two women it just says "mother and parent")
• Changes your legal sex, so you cannot be excluded from single sex spaces as you are legally that sex and if you're old enough, your state pension retirement age is changed (doesn't apply to Ollie)
• Changes if you can have a civil partnership instead of a marriage (same sex couples can have a civil partnership or a marriage, straight couples only get a marriage)

You don't need a GRC for equality act protections around being trans (only for sex discrimination), and the main reason they were campaigned for by Press For Change was so that trans women could marry their fiancés (which is irrelevant now, and that benefit never extended to transbians who couldn't get married as a woman to a woman until Same Sex Marriages got brought it).

On that last note, I suppose the reason Ollie may find it particularly galling is that his fantasy of a lesbian wedding would be ruined if it were announced he and his blushing bride were "husband and husband".

 

[scathefire]

Didn't want to 'age like a man' specifically.

If I recall, Ellen Paige talked about 'aging as a woman' when she trooned out. Disturbing commonality.

This seems like an odd concern considering that as troons get older, they start aging like they sex they are regardless and tend to pass less and less, especially TiMs.

 

[Shotgun Badger]

If I recall, Ellen Paige talked about 'aging as a woman' when she trooned out. Disturbing commonality.

Contrapoints said that too, its fucking insane how consistent it is that the main fear is losing your youthful vigour and getting old and ugly.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

This seems like an odd concern considering that as troons get older, they start aging like they sex they are regardless and tend to pass less and less, especially TiMs.

Yes, but they don’t let themselves notice.

 

[diroama]

• Changes your legal sex, so you cannot be excluded from single sex spaces as you are legally that sex and if you're old enough, your state pension retirement age is changed (doesn't apply to Ollie)

A GRC doesn't give someone any more or less right to use a space intended solely for people of the opposite sex (or your new 'legal sex').

Exemptions from the EA allowing single sex spaces, services and sport apply whether someone has a GRC or not. The troons are actually right about this - a self ID GRC would not give them more right to seek validation from pissing next to real women.

The EA doesn't actually say that the protected right of being a troon means you have to treat them like the sex theyre larping as - it says you can't discriminate against them because they are.

That's what the EHRC has recently tried to clarify - to much screeching from the trans lobby.



The law uses the terms sex and gender interchangeabley, which is understandable as it was written over five years ago before the world lost its mind.

The troons own terms should be used to update the law, legally separating the meaningful term of sex from the now meaningless term gender. The former should have rights and protections, the latter being legally changeable and ultimately inconsequential.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

Gay people: Until recently literally criminal most of the world over.

Women: Couldn't have their own bank accounts seperate from their husbands as recently as the 70s.

Black people: Denied goods and services or housing based on skin colour.

Trans people: ...The wedding celebrant might use the wrong word. Once. Also, you aren't guaranteed sporting victory.

 

[Excited Eraser]

Spoiler: Another sperg

I have been googling to make sure and although there's a few references to "husband and wife" on gov.uk (usually around inheritance law guidance), I really can't see any other situation where that language is used. Pretty much everything on the law books was updated to say "spouse or civil partner" or was already gender neutral (e.g. the decree nisi and decree absolute only ever said "petitioner", "respondent" and "spouse", since it could be either party). The wedding certificate doesn't even use the language "husband" and "wife". Every form of government ID besides the birth certificate can be updated to M or F (no X option which pisses off some activists) requiring at most a GP's note to change, and public sector bodies are all required to refer to someone as their preferred gender.

Possibly there may be issues around a family visa as it differentiates between "fiancé" and "fiancée" but that'd probably only come up if Ollie's spouse hadn't legally changed their gender in the US.

There may be other implications with insurance providers and the like but that's more to do with the insurance providers.

The only thing stopping registrars using "spouse" in the ceremony is the Wedding Act 1949, because nobody bothered amending that one bit of wording. It's the same act that also means you can't have "Ave Maria" play you down the aisle and why you can't have a Bible reading at a civil ceremony.

The only other things a Gender Recognition Certificate does (as far as I can tell):

• Changes your birth certificate so you can use an updated version for ID purposes
• Makes it a criminal offence to out you (if that person knew you had a gender recognition certificate and you weren't already publicly out)
• Changes what goes on your death certificate
• Allows you to be recorded as a father/parent on a birth certificate (unless you gave birth to the child, in which case you're inevitably the mother - if there's two women it just says "mother and parent")
• Changes your legal sex, so you cannot be excluded from single sex spaces as you are legally that sex and if you're old enough, your state pension retirement age is changed (doesn't apply to Ollie)
• Changes if you can have a civil partnership instead of a marriage (same sex couples can have a civil partnership or a marriage, straight couples only get a marriage)

You don't need a GRC for equality act protections around being trans (only for sex discrimination), and the main reason they were campaigned for by Press For Change was so that trans women could marry their fiancés (which is irrelevant now, and that benefit never extended to transbians who couldn't get married as a woman to a woman until Same Sex Marriages got brought it).

On that last note, I suppose the reason Ollie may find it particularly galling is that his fantasy of a lesbian wedding would be ruined if it were announced he and his blushing bride were "husband and husband".

What consequences, if any, does the change on the birth certificate have? It's one of the most absurd demands because it's allowing people to retroactively alter their medical history.